One would reasonably infer from this that the only reason that SpaceX got the space station resupply contract was because Elon Musk has contributed to the Obama campaign. Simply put, this is nonsense. But more on that below.

The picture itself is clearly calculated to make Mr. Musk appear clueless and foolish. He is neither.

And the piece itself is both misleading and factually incorrect right from the opening paragraphs:

Questions are being raised about NASA’s relationship with Silicon Valley whiz Elon Musk in the wake of his Falcon 9 rocket delivering only half of the promised cargo on its first mission to the International Space Station.

The rocket lost power from one of its nine engines shortly after its Sunday launch and only delivered 882 of the promised 1,800 pounds of resupply cargo for the space station.

“Questions are being raised.” Got to love that passive voice. Who, on the record (and no, “nameless NASA astronauts,” as cited later in the piece, don’t count), is raising these questions? I rarely see them raised by anyone other than people, either in industry or on the Hill, whose gravy train will be derailed by a privatized and competitive space program.

Anyway, the first statement is factually false. The vehicle delivered all of the payload that NASA expected, and was loaded into the vehicle in Florida. The second paragraph implies that there is some relationship between the amount of payload delivered and the fact that the rocket lost an engine in flight. It also implies that NASA was expecting 1800 pounds on this mission, but that somehow some of it fell out the window during ascent, or was tossed overboard as ballast, or space aliens hijacked some of the cargo on the way or…something. Does the reporter really find this a plausible scenario?

I’m not sure where he gets his 1800 pound number, but perhaps it’s the amount of payload stipulated in the resupply contract that SpaceX be capable of delivering. And in fact, the vehicle could have carried that much payload in terms of mass on this flight, even with the engine failure, which didn’t affect performance to the ISS at all (the only effect it had on the mission was that a secondary payload was delivered to the wrong orbit, and the owner of that satellite is not unhappy, because it still achieved most of its mission objectives for a very low cost). On this very flight, it actually delivered almost a ton, about half of which was useful payload (the rest was packaging for the various equipment and experiments).

Let’s go on:

These are not the Falcon 9 project’s first setbacks, as it is at least two years behind schedule and three previous test launches were cancelled.

First, it’s not in any way unusual for space projects to be behind schedule, and SpaceX has been behind schedule for an order of magnitude less money than NASA would be (and often has been) for a similar project, according to NASA’s own cost models. And I have no idea what he’s talking about with “test launches cancelled.” There have been postponements and delays, often for reasons beyond the company’s control (for example, issues with the range), but all planned test flights to date have flown, other than in one case where two previously planned flights were combined into a single one (the successful test flight to ISS in May).

The questions being raised in the wake of the equipment failures, however, concern the Falcon 9′s mission funding instead of its technology, with some critics charging NASA made a sweetheart deal that lacks transparency and accountability.

“Some critics.” Yes, SpaceX has a lot of critics, primarily people whose government-funded monopoly rice bowls are being broken by its low-cost (to both taxpayers and other customers) business model.

Last year, Musk gave $5,000 to Obama for America and $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, but he has also contributed heavily to Democratic and Republican congressional incumbents and challengers. [Emphasis added]

Is it unusual for a businessman to make political contributions? If not, what is the point of this paragraph? Many assume that he somehow got the commercial cargo contract because he’s somehow a supporter of Obama, but he made a much bigger contribution to (Republican) Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in the current election cycle when he threw a thousand-dollar-per-ticket fundraiser for him at his rocket factory in Hawthorne, California. And SpaceX (along with Orbital Sciences Corporation) won its cargo contract in a fair and open competition. The same applies to its commercial crew contract, which Sierra Nevada Corporation and Boeing also won. But now we come to the real disingenuity:

In a statement to The Washington Examiner, NASA spokesman Trent Perrotto defended SAAs, saying they put “flexibility in the hands of the providers.”

But others, including space program experts and congressional critics from both parties, argue that SAA is a carte blanche handover of public money without litmus tests, design specifications, financial audits and adequate safety oversight.

A former NASA astronaut complained in an interview with the Examiner, that design and financial details under SAA are beyond the reach of government officials.

“The contractors are saying ‘give us some seed money, trust us,’” said the former astronaut, who requested anonymity.

This is nonsense. SAAs are not “carte blanche.” The structure of the commercial cargo and commercial crew contracts are that they are fixed fee, based on pre-agreed performance milestones, or “litmus tests.” NASA knows exactly what the design specifications are for the vehicles, and NASA had plenty of safety oversight for the ISS mission. Yes, NASA doesn’t do financial audits, because on fixed-price contracts, the internal costs to the company are none of NASA’s business, and as stated above, SpaceX and the other contractors have performed for much less than standard industry cost models would have predicted, saving the taxpayers billions over a traditional cost-plus contract. And I love the “former astronaut, who requested anonymity.” Very credible.

But here’s the best part:

Michael D. Griffin, the former NASA Administrator under President George W. Bush, slammed SAA funding, saying it is a system “for which NASA cannot set requirements, cannot direct design features, cannot control management practices (and) cannot require financial audits.”

His comments came in a prepared lecture Sept. 6 at Georgia Tech University.

What the article doesn’t say is that the SAA contract under which SpaceX flew to the ISS this week was, by some strange coincidence, issued by someone named Michael D. Griffin, during the Bush administration. In other words, Musk’s campaign contributions to Barack Obama had nothing to do with it, unless the current president somehow anticipated the future donation or got into his time machine and somehow managed to compel his predecessor to get the NASA administrator to put his thumb on the scale. And this is the same Michael D. Griffin who is angling to get his old job back under a Romney administration, despite the fact that he wasted many billions on a flawed exploration architecture that was ballooning in cost, was slipping in schedule more than a year per year, and had to be put out of its and the taxpayers’ misery three years ago.

He seemed to think that SAAs were just fine then. And they were — his COTS program (Commercial Orbiter Transportation Services) is a success, despite the flawed reporting in this article. But it’s a shame to see the Washington Examiner falling for the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that have been sown for three years now by rent seekers at the traditional NASA teat of both parties, desperately trying to preserve the old socialistic NASA-monopoly space program that has cost the taxpayers a billion dollars per astronaut delivered and was responsible for the deaths of fourteen of them.

Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings.

Click here to view the 102 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

102 Comments, 36 Threads

1.
Dave Smith

In a recent appearance on CSPAN’s Book TV, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson made. what seemed to me to be, an interesting prediction on the respective roles of private space companies and NASA in the further exploration and exploitation of space.

It is his contention that privately-funded space companies will carve out a role for themselves in missions and functions that will lead to a profit for their investors, such as space tourism and the routine resupply of space outposts such as the International Space Station and future lunar or Martian colonies. They will also play the major role in mining materials from asteroids and perhaps the Moon and Mars.

The key point, Tyson said, is that these companies will be motivated by profit first, and foremost.

NASA’s role will be found in deep exploration where the motive is not profit, but scientific knowledge. These missions will be so expensive that only a national government will have the resources to fund them. Since there will be no immediate profit from these endeavors, private enterprise will not likely find investors interested in pure discovery. However, if the NASA missions should reveal exploitable resources, it is a good bet that private companies would soon follow their path into the stars.

Thus a symbiotic relationship between NASA and private enterprise will form. The current sniping between some NASA proponents and emerging space companies such as Space X as noted in Simberg’s article above might just be the temporary tensions one can expect as NASA adjusts to the birth of a new industry.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson is also a believer in AGW and a huge Obama supporter.

However with that said, he’s probably correct in his initial assessment of how space exploration will matriculate in the near future. It is doubtful that a private enterprise would have funded Opportunity and Spirit and the latest VW-sized six-wheeler, Curiosity. They are very costly and provide immense knowledge for the purpose of exploration but there is only that in return, no profit. I’m not saying this is bad.

Remember, funding to Columbus came from Isabella under the supposition that there was lots and lots of gold in the new world out there. Not so on Mars…..or Venus or..well.

So far there is no financial return for private space exploration. The money for paying the people at Falcon came mostly from the government albeit cheaper than what NASA costs. In that sense, by shutting down our astronaut program, Obama has inadvertently provided incentive for private companies to rise. That’s not his intention, of course but he never is attuned to the laws of unintended consequences. Nevertheless in 15 years or so he’ll take the credit just the same.

Actually all the wealth to be had which is not on the Earth is elsewhere. The significance of that tautology is that all that is preventing it’s exploitation is government–the fear a government will take it. The approach of the US should be that the UN and all nations as nations can go pound sand, devil take the hindmost.

“I don’t believe the Qween’s motivation was for gold alone. I thought she and Columbus were looking for a better and shorter route to the Orient.”

Yes, they were, and to the spices of the Orient, thus stopping the drain of gold from Europe, into the hands of the middlemen of the 15th century spice trade, the empires of Islam, who demanded payment only in gold. Note that Spain had just completed its “Reconquista” of the old Spain. They were still major Christian opponents of Islam, and would remain so for much of the next 200 years. They had strong interest in avoiding the Muslim demand for payment in gold, and an even stronger interest in finding new sources of gold.

by shutting down our astronaut program, Obama has inadvertently provided incentive for private companies to rise. That’s not his intention, of course but he never is attuned to the laws of unintended consequences.

Excuse me, but that’s totally in error. Bush made the decision in 2004 to shut down ALL American human spaceflight by 2010, by canceling shuttle with no follow-on human replacement. Obama has rectified the situation – in exactly the correct way – by helping to jump-start a new commercial crew transportation industry, along similar lines to what Bush did to establish a commercial LEO cargo industry. How you could have made that statement with a straight face I have no idea.

Actually, there was a follow on for the Shuttle. They were going to launch the Orion capsule on the Ares I booster. Unfortunately, NASA screwed up the program. They’ve spent about $5 billion on Orion and the Ares I was a non-starter. Contrast that to SpaceX spending about a billion dollars on the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsules.

DeGasse is making an assumption that is not in the record, that space science must be expensive and that deep exploration must be so expensive that only governments can fund it. This will eventually be a crock and may be a crock today. Take the cost of our first deep exploration missions, the Mariners. TCO of the Mariner program was $554M for the whole program from R&D through monitoring. That’s $4B in today’s money give or take over a decade. The top private R&D expense in 2009 was Roche Holding which spent $9.1B that year. That a company like Roche devotes 5% of its R&D budget to space exploration is probably unrealistic. But it’s not really *that* unrealistic and if you squint you can see pathways where private R&D expenditures include basic research in space exploration some time in the medium term of 10-20 years, especially when companies like SpaceX drive down the single biggest cost, the launch cost.

Arthur C. Clarke layed out a similar future over 40 years ago regarding LEO comemrcial ops and BEO exploration in the Epilogue to a book titled ‘First Men On The Moon’ by Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins. It’s all there.

Every other provider of pounds to LEO is drastically more expensive, even the foreign suppliers like China.

The points raised by Mr. Simberg explode the hit piece in Examiner, there’s nothing left of it. The pet contractors to NASA need to be told by the taxpayers to wither and die, or re-invent themselves in some other field–they have no credibility.

It would be dire shame for congress critters with either letter after their name to successfully intervene and decide who the winner is at this point, and I hope they enjoy no support from the GOP base if they were to indulge in such socialism.

Where do you get the data that says Space X is cheaper? They advertise this on their website…Falcon 9, $54-59 million. But if you do the math they are charging NASA on average $133 for each of the 12 launches to resupply the Space Station. Also they are charging NASA around $90 million to launch another satellite.

ULA Delta IV and Atlas V are around $70-90 million a launch and can launch far heavier payloads.

Yes if you go buy what Space X says they are cheaper..but if you look at what they are charging they are not. So it appears they are not honest in what they say and what they charge the US taxpayer. This is all public record.

Also ULA Delta IV and Atlas V have almost perfect records. So you must admit their is some deception based upon the real facts.

The NASA flights include both the Falcon 9 AND the Dragon. I.e. 133 million is buying a rocket and it’s payload. Or more accurately the payload carrier. A Delta IV and Atlas V flight will need to factor in the payload cost as well as the launcher cost.

NASA did not want SpaceX to reuse the capsules. NASA wanted a brand new capsule for each flight. I am sure when SpaceX starts selling cargo runs to Bigelow Aerospace in 2015-16 that cost will be a lot less because they will reuse the capsules that NASA paid for.

If you can get a Delta or an Atlas for $90 million a launch, sign me up for a dozen. According to space news, , the government is going to be paying over $450 million per launch for those vehicles.

Yes, Isakowitz third edition gave the cost as $70-90 million per launch, and Isakowitz is pretty authoritative in all things launcher-related. But third edition is more than a decade out of date, and there’s a reason the fourth edition doesn’t give EELV prices. You can’t just use the old number, or even the old number plus CPI inflation.

And, as others have noted, you’re comparing the cost of the ULA rocket to the cost of the SpaceX rocket and spaceship. ULA charges approximately $450 million for the rocket and launch, with the true cost hidden behind accounting that makes Hollywood look fair and transparent. SpaceX charges under $60 million. Or, for $133 million and a long-term contract, SpaceX will sell the rocket, the launch, the spaceship, and access to NASA oversight. What ULA would charge for the equivalent service is unknown, but figure on the order of a billion dollars.

SpaceX is not the only “commercial” launch vehicle company and to allege, as many do that they are, is false. Having worked in the aerospace industry for 30 years, I know what the landscape is and how it works. SpaceX will be unable to control their costs when exposed to the pervasive and costly “oversight” that the various government agencies literally force down the throats of contractors. The contracting community is not totally innocent either and I would never say otherwise but in large measure, the extra costs are driven by the customers for our products.

Over and over again, I’ve been in 2 hour meetings that were attended by a room full of government employees and adjunct contractor “watch dogs” who have all flown commercially and booked hotel rooms just to “show face” – all for a couple of hours of doughnuts and pontificating.

If I were to pick a number, I’d say that about 15% of any of the 22 government programs I’ve been associated with in my career has been waste and could be eliminated without any ill effects on the eventual product. The oversight problem compounds itself and increases costs by delaying technical decisions and solutions thus driving resultant schedule slips – which of course are costly because of the necessity to maintain a “standing army of workers” while the so-called “leaders” dither.

SpaceX will be unable to change this culture – especially if they pursue man-rating their space vehicles as they said they will. When human space flight is factored into the equation, the costs will soar even more.

Maybe. Maybe instead we will take space access out of public trough feeders hands like yours and the people you worked for and instead put it into the hands of people who want to make money.

Then they will.

If NASA could do the job, why didn’t they? They had forty years prior access to all the tech SpaceX started with. Since SpaceX is doing the job, why won’t that continue? Because of ULA’s flood of tears?

I am not affiliated with ULA. So I am neutral on any company. I just have issues when I see one thing being said and then seeing the taxpayer being charged more than what is already available.

ULA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin make plenty of money without ULA. ULA was developed to lower costs which it did. If you look at their record it is very good and the Air Force has been happy with them.

Space X advertises the Falcon Heavy which hasn’t even been built yet alone flown.
I’ve seen some compare it the SLS. It comes nothing close to SLS in capability and SLS will be built by proven technologies that have a 1oo% reliability record. Space X cannot say that.

I am disappointed that Space X duped the taxpayer and with all their hype..they have not demonstrated a record yet at the costs they said they would.

Not quite accurate. NASA is spending $2 bilion a year for many years to develop the SLS. The first version will use 5-segment SRBs derived from Shuttle SRBs, the same ones that destroyed the Challenger. That’s not quite the 100% reliability that you claim. The first SLS version is intended to launch 70 tons to LEO.

The second version of SLS will use other technology. One technology under investigation is to use liquid-fueled strap-on boosters. NASA has let study contracts to revive the Apollo legacy F-1 engines (used on the Saturn V’s first stage).

The real problem with SLS is that it’s taking so much money to develop that there isn’t any monry left over to develop payloads for it; it effect it’s the rocket to nowhere. The closest thing to a payload for the SLS is the Orion capsule and it would be grossly inefficient to use SLS to launch those. NASA has spent $5 billion on the Orion capsule so far and it’s years away from a manned flight.

NASA answers to the porkonauts in congress. It is impossible to do what SpaceX does, their overhead and standing labor force prevents anything low cost. The Space Shuttle labor force costs 200 million a month. That is 2.4 billion a year and all that pays for is the standing army and a few power point presentations. That is why nothing got done with Constellation and why SLS is already 1 year behind and will continue to fall behind with no results.

It is not about opening the frontier it is about keeping all hands on deck in each congressional district.

I had the privilege of being a ‘Social Media Reporter’ at the October 7 CRS-1 launch. As such we were able to have an open discussion with Administrator Bolden, much of which centered around the differences between traditional FAR procurements and Space Act procurements.

The whole point of the Space Act was to reduce the sort of bureaucratic waste that @Skeet Shooter is concerned about.

NASA doesn’t dictate any design elements. Instead NASA worked with each CRS bidder to establish performance milestones appropriate for the proposed system and the amount of NASA funding provided to the bidder. While NASA does monitor each bidder, they largely avoid traditional micro-management.

SpaceX is contracted to deliver at least 20 metric tons of cargo to the ISS over the 12 missions. They are paid for success as the program proceeds. Ms Shotwell, SpaceX President, said at the pre-launch press conference that SpaceX expects to deliver 60 metric ton to the ISS over the 12 missions.

I think both the Bush and Obama administrations should be very proud of the way the Space Act contracts are panning out. This is a new and better way for the government to interact with the private sector.

In the words of Ann Coulter ‘I take a backseat to no one in right wing wackery’, but even so I hope the President Romney retains Mr. Bolden as NASA Administrator. Mr. Bolden is the just the sort of leader we need more of in government in general, and NASA in particular.

Yes. And, if I’m reading Elon Musk correctly, if he gets too much crap from the US government, he is well capable of moving his entire operation to some more-friendly jurisdiction. The man wants humanity to go to Mars. He won’t let an inbred government stand in his way. I applaud him in this.

I disagree on your assessment of Mr Bolden. Have you ever heard him testify? Go to You tube it’s public record. He has come across as the most clueless administrator I have ever heard.

He is way out his league. Get rid of him and his second in command and we will get somewhere. Face it..if NASA did not give Space X these contracts. Space X would fold. The commercial companies are down the line to see if Space X can actually deliver. This will have to be demonstrated. So far they are 0/1 on the commercial side… The resupply mission was a go..the commercial part a failure…I guess insurance will cover the loss… of course I am sure the insurance companies will charge more in the future for a Falcon launch.

To have a good business model in manufacturing…1st place you would not open up business in is CA…

In a number of endeavors the government people have reinvented the wheel time and again. By just going to mass production of parts across multiple rockets, SpaceX is raising the bar in ways that will reduce costs. The modular nuclear reactor people are doing the same thing elsewhere. One off development efforts are ungodly expensive and while not technically waste they are just about the most expensive way to do things.

I too have worked for government contractors, but I guess I had different experiences than you did. One of those experiences was when we won a contract to provide ruggedized computers for the Army, but they were based on commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS – but not the same as the NASA COTS) components. All the government could control was the functionality of the final product – and it drove the DCAS inspectors nuts, because they were not allowed to do any detailed audits or inspections.

And that’s the way I see the CRS contract – that SpaceX has been approved for delivering cargo by successfully completing the COTS program, but otherwise NASA doesn’t dictate how they build their vehicle or run their business. Could requirement creep happen? It might, but I think SpaceX has enough savvy business people to realize when to respond to a question with a quote instead of a “yes”. However I think Musk and Shotwell understand that they have to keep their operations focused on capabilities that can be used by the widest possible market, and at this point there is no downside to SpaceX saying “no” to a bunch of nonsense requests – who else can do what they do, for the cost they do it at?

Elon has already said that if the government becomes too onerous in their requirements they can pound sand. He’s not just another cost plus contractor. He has a vision and will not allow the government to corrupt it. He will of course take their money when it doesn’t conflict with his goals. He’s proven to be a good businessman that knows how to swim with the sharks.

The bottom line is that SpaceX is delivering cargo cheaper to the International Space station than any other entity. With the demise of the Space Shuttle they are the only organization that can return significant amounts of experiments and waste safely back to earth.

Other private companies have received grants from the federal governtment under various programs but SpaceX was the first to deliver. Even Boeing who has been manufacturing launch vehicles for decades is far behind SpaceX.

SpaceX will probably be the first company to deliver astronauts to the space station at a significant discount compared to the Russian Space Agency.

It is an absolute joke that SpaceX has “Carte Blanche” and that the government has no oversite. The successful May launch of Falcon9/Dragon was pushed back several months due to safety audits by NASA.

I know many people are upset that NASA currently depends upon the RSA for manned launches with the retirement of the Shuttle however it is not the first time this has happended. From 1975 with the final launch of Apollo until 1981 with the first launch of the Shuttle the US did not have a manned space program.

The Washington Examiner hit piece is most likely based on the fact that Mr. Musk supports President Obama and also that Mr. Musks electric car company Tesla just received additional federal loans due to the slow production of their current model.

The COTS program (or whatever its current name is) has generally been a success story simply due to the cost savings which in my book is good for the taxpayer.

SpaceX is not simply developing another launch vehicle for NASA. The videos and other presentations on SpaceX’s website make it clear that they are aiming towards fully reusable launch vehicles that will drop the cost-to-orbit for commercial payloads (as well as government) by at least a factor of 10. If you look at the designs for the Falcon, it and its variants are all based on common modules that are designed for ease of manufacturing and for reliability. While the current Falcon stages are discarded after launch, SpaceX has just completed one test to demonstrate that the basic Falcon stage can land after launch for reuse.

Towards this end, a few important points must be made about that last SpaceX mission. First, the rocket compensated perfectly for the loss of the engine – as per design – and fulfilled its objectives. Many other launch vehicles would have had to abort and lose the entire cargo. Secondly, the loss of the secondary payloads full orbit was not entirely necessary, but was dictated by NASA because of very stringent safety requirements for the ISS. The Falcon’s second stage had to re-ignite after deploying the Dragon, and NASA demanded that the safety factor – the risk that the re-ignition interfered with the proper performance of the Dragon and ISS – be less than 1% (a 99% safety margin). Due to the engine failure the risk was 5% (a 95% safety margin). Most commercial operations would have accepted a higher level of risk and simply gone on with the mission.

I seem to remember reading that the Falcon 9 was developed and flown for around $500 million. The Aries 1, which was being developed by NASA at the same time, spent 10 times as much money, around $5 billion. That is the power of private enterprise versus government bureaucracy, however well intentioned.

I also agree that NASA should concentrate on exploration and basic science, but should outsource as much as possible to private industry, which is a far more efficient producer and provider of goods and services.

Mike, you’re way out there with your numbers. The NASA study released last year that did the cost comparison of Falcon 9 (including Falcon 1) by SpaceX, vs if it were done via NASA cost-plus business as usual, validated SpaceX’s number of $400m for both Falcon 9 and 1 development combined. I also had sat in on some Ares 1X briefings; the total for Ares 1X was less than $500m. Now, that’s still doesn’t make the NASA way of doing business look good. Ares-IX used an off-the shelf SRB and a dummy upperstage from a modified pad; yet it still cost as much or more than SpaceX took to develop two whole new launch vehicles, including the pads. But it’s important to talk reality when dealing with numbers, not fantasy.

It is obvious from reading many comments here and elsewhere, that some of those expressing opinions have significant knowledge of the technical aspects of the space program, while it is also obvious that some readers have no idea of the history of the space program, or what they are talking about.

One case in point is that no one seems to remember that NASA constantly lied about how much the Shuttle was supposed to cut the cost of putting payloads into orbit. NASA originally justified the Shuttle by claiming the cost of putting payloads into orbit was going drop hugely, and that the Shuttle was supposed to fly every week with a bare minimum of refurbishment and make all expendable launch vehicles obsolete. Hah!!

First of all, NASA never explained where the money was going to come from to pay for all these hugely expensive payloads the Shuttle was supposed to launch every week – at least 50 launches per year to bring down the “per-launch” cost. Now we all know the true price of putting a pound into orbit was much higher with the Shuttle than with any type of expendable launch vehicle. And the Shuttle required massive refurbishment by an army of specialists between each launch. Each Shuttle launch actually cost somewhere between $1.5 and $2 billion (with a B), and probably a lot more when you figure in all the associated support costs.

NASA even attempted to fudge these cost numbers by not only allowing, but in the 90s encouraging the makers of Delta and Atlas and Titan launch vehicles to raise their launch costs. The idea was that as the launch costs of expendable boosters got higher and higher, it would make Shuttle launch costs appear to be more reasonable. Unfortunately, the skyrocketing (pardon the pun) costs of US expendable launch vehicles priced them out of competition with the Europeans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, etc. US expendable launch vehicles, specifically the Delta-4 series and the Atlas-5 today are excellent, and highly reliable, but no one except the US Government can afford to buy them. Titan was a quick casualty, as no one except NASA or the US Air Force could afford to buy a launch vehicle from the Titan family, so it disappeared.

But now that NASA is out of the launch vehicle business (forget that “heavy-lift” monstrosity NASA is currently supposed to be designing), it is up to SpaceX (and maybe Orbital) to show how the launch business should really be run. Barring a major catastrophe, SpaceX will be “shuttling” both US astronauts and cargo to ISS within a couple years. The Russians, Europeans and Japanese are already shuttling cargo to ISS as often as they can afford it.

It will also be the SpaceX Falcon-Heavy booster which will most likely take US astronauts back to the Moon & beyond because it is the best design. Unfortunately the makers of other existing US boosters are so wedded to their bloated NASA-style bureaucracy & costs, that their launch vehicles never will be able to compete.

As you state…$1.5 and $2 billion (with a B), and probably a lot more when you figure in all the associated support costs. That figure is on the high side and include development costs..The Space Shuttle still is the most advanced Space craft ever designed.

Actual payload cost are $350-540 a launch…don’t forget..that includes 7 people plus a payload of up to 54,000 lbs. Cost was about $8,000 per lb. Much of the cost was because this is human rated… wait until that enters the arena and see what costs are.

Cost plus contracts are in place because there is not a private market for these govt services and a company is not going to do something for free. The plus part is the part they will make as a profit. Which often is not that great. Ask a company to do something custom for you and you will see they use the same business model.

I question the whole thing based on the terrible mistake of “Georgia Tech University.” It’s Georgia Institute of Technology. Any good trivia player knows Georgia Tech is one of the five schools in what used to be Division 1A without “University” in its title.

If an engine blew up on a NASA standard vehicle, the mission would be over (or people would be dead). It happened on a SpaceX vehicle and the mission completed. It seems to me like SpaceX just happens to be good at building redundancies into their systems.

The engine didn’t “blow up” (as near as I can tell from what’s reported) but rather simply shut down allowing the other engines to burn longer. IIRC the Saturn V that sent Apollo astronauts to the moon had more than one inflight engine shutdown.

I’m all for SpaceX, but if Musk has been contributing politically (to ANYONE, either party, national or local), maybe he should stop just to avoid the pretext for ANY questions being asked.

The engine didn’t blow up; it was shut down. We also shut down a shuttle engine going uphill on STS-51F (I was there in Mission Control sitting next to the Booster Officer when she cried out, “Center Engine Out”). Please, you’ve got that little Google search window on your browser which gives you more power to check historical facts than 99% of humans previously have ever had; it’s a shame for you not to use it.

I want to echo a lot of the skepticism above. The problem and physics of getting a pound to orbit, remain what they have always been, and is going to stay fiercely expensive for the forseeable future. Given that, who will fund SpaceX? About the same who have funded efforts previously. On the positive side if SpaceX can beat the economics of Russian, Chinese, and French launchers, terrific, reason enough for their success, such as it is.

Still, seriously folks, this is third or fourth or fifth generation launch technology, I sure *hope* that a semi-efficient organization can get a pound to orbit better today than in 1970, our computer-based engineering and manufacturing, progress in materials, and just fifty years of experience, SHOULD make it possible to do a lot better now than then.

The money, you see, is still either government or giant corporate. The players will have to play in Washington, facts of life, can’t get too excited about that.

“The problem and physics of getting a pound to orbit, remain what they have always been, and is going to stay fiercely expensive for the forseeable future. Given that, who will fund SpaceX?”

The physics of getting a pound of cargo at common cargo density to Australia from the US by air at around 600mph by current airliners, versus getting the same pound into low Earth orbit, is that it is cheaper in terms of energy required to get into space. If companies providing poundage to orbit had mature enough technology, comparable to airliners, then it would be cheaper to get to Australia by sub-orbital means than by airplane.

Also noisier. More of a light show. And quicker by far.

“The players will have to play in Washington, facts of life, can’t get too excited about that.”

Sad but true, SpaceX and all who follow will have to grovel to be allowed to operate. As conservatives, we need to make sure they need to grovel to the least degree we can arrange for.

The physics of getting a pound of cargo at common cargo density to Australia from the US by air at around 600mph by current airliners, versus getting the same pound into low Earth orbit, is that it is cheaper in terms of energy required to get into space.

Is that true? I wouldn’t know how to begin to check it. A nice piece of trivia at least, and I’m sure there’s a lesson in it.

If companies providing poundage to orbit had mature enough technology, comparable to airliners, then it would be cheaper to get to Australia by sub-orbital means than by airplane.

Yes, but unfortunately in this case “mature enough” means a *lot* more than anybody has today, sky hooks or 100 mile towers or clean fusion propulsion or something. Energy density/impulse is the issue. Mass drivers for anything that can take 100g accelerations. Giant balloons to 100,000 feet? Otherwise as you point out, burning candles around a pound of cargo (for a week or three) can use up the same energy it would take to launch it to orbit, but that doesn’t seem to help.

100% certain it was true in dollars when I heard it, which I’ll admit was 20 years ago. The rocket burned 2.5 times the amount of cheaper fuel, and had way more potential energy than the plane when it was done doing it. Bit of trick in the calculation though, the plane was landed at Perth where in that case you wanted to go. The rocket was in orbit and wasn’t going to de-orbit to go to Perth!

Still, going to Perth BY rocket took less fuel than doing it by plane, since if they are going to the same place, and landing, they both end up with identical deltas of position, there is no gain in potential energy by the rocket compared to the airplane, i.e, both land in the same place. But to get to that same place sub-orbitally, the rocket burns less fuel than it does to get to orbit.

I think jet fuel is around $5+ /gallon retail, and RP-1 would be a little less, since operationally it doesn’t need to be quite as refined and it would be bought in larger bulk purchases. LOX is cheap at $175.00/ton, and for propellent applications you don’t buy retail, you run your own LOX plant. Call it$30.00/ton.

My understanding of the incident agrees with that of several commenters above – the engine was shut down by the flight control software on the rocket when there was a loss of pressure in the engine that could indicate imminent failure. In addition, the software also commanded the ejection of several baffles or partitions that control pressures in the engine aream but I have not been able to get an explanation of exactly how they function, or why they are needed. The overall impression is of a system that experienced a failure, but one that was mitigated by built-in safety mechanisms and allowed the mission to be completed.

A smaller secondary satellite was supposed to be inserted into a higher orbit after the relaease of the Dragon capsule, but there was insufficient fuel remaining to safely restart the engines after the release of Dragon, so the secondary mission, which was being conducted at greatly reduced, if not zero, cost on a best-efforts basis, had to be abandoned.

Engine failures are a statistical reality, especially with rockets using a large number of engines, for obvious reasons. With liquid fuel engines, fuel can be re-routed to the remaining good engines, if the control systems are sophisticated enough to do so, as they are in the Falcon 9.

Interestingly the first attempt to launch the Soviet N-1 moon rocket (their Saturn 5 equivalent) was ended by an explosion of one of its 32 (!) main stage engines soon after liftoff. Actually what happened was that a fuel turbopump exploded. The explosion was not contained and damaged other engines. The rather primitive KORD control software was unable to respond effectively, resulting in the entire fully-fueled rocket falling back onto the launch pad from only a few hundred feet.

I have heard anecdotally that the launch contol crew had a very bad day, being wiped out to a man when the huge explosion destroyed the blockhouse. I have also heard somewhat more reliably (don’t ask) that the explosion triggered the seismic sensors that the US used to detect clandestine Soviet nuclear tests.

Interesting article as usual. Nice touch about that socialized government monopoly, NASA, ruthlessly killing 14 astronauts to develop the infrastructure and technology that would other wise not have happened in the first place if left to private enterprise. Somehow I think all that post Columbus carnage in the New World would have happened without Ferdinand, at busy body Isabel’s behest, and the Spanish State funding the expeditions. Of course, the less developed earlier brutal Vikings failed, but Cortez, essentially on his own, got a lot of people killed and defeated the Aztecs. I’m sure those first stateless noble savages from the Eurasian land mass were non violent tribal pacifists as they settled the pacific north west, hunting and gathering with stone age spear tips. Are you seriously suggesting that private enterprise can not be ruthless in it capital spending? Wasn’t the Titanic privately built and managed?

Your distinction drawn between Gates and MS I find to be specious, and the point was that MS did not engage in lobbying up to that point, but was sued successfully for what the complainants in that suit were also doing–most likely because they had bought off politicians.

And frankly, MS was a natural monopoly, there were no barriers to entry which it purchased from government.

Microsoft did not out compete its rivals. It lied to, bribed, cheated and bullied just about everyone it did business with. Look up the history of Netscape vs Internet explorer and the browser wars, Java vs MSjava, Quicktime and “Knife the Baby”, Embrace Extend Extinguish, and the Microsoft funding of the SCO–Linux Lawsuit to name a few examples.

They have a habit of encouraging their employees to take jobs at other companies to steer the companies in a pro Microsoft direction essentially spies and saboteurs. Companies that partner with Microsoft in a competitive area tend to get gutted and discarded if they are small, or just royally shafted if they are big. See the history of IBM OS2, and just about any major company that has hired a former Microsoft VP in a high ranking position for an example.

They pay people to disrupt competitors communities, they have sabotaged competitors conventions and forums by bribing moderators and paying people to post disruptive messages and create disorder.

As for natural monopoly, there are these things called standards, that if followed allow for easy cross platform support. Microsoft has never met a standard that it couldn’t pervert or destroy.

Most of the things it did would have been impossible for a “for profit” company to do without the financial security of a near monopoly position as they were financially irresponsible and served no purpose but to actively inhibit competition by destroying profitable markets and impeding technological progress.

The government case against Microsoft was not a case of government bullying, but rather the government trying to do its job and maintain a free market. It just didn’t work as Microsoft was too big and managed to bribe its way out of trouble once it realized it needed to.

A very nice article here and a big shame on them for this puffy hit piece in the Examiner. It is hard to characterize Elon Musk as “an Obama contributor.” This is a great man, a captain of industry who changed the world once already (with Facebook) and now is on the cusp of changing it again (with full re usability and affordability to orbit). He is entitled to donate to whoever he wants- I just wish he was as smart in politics as he appears to be in every other phase of his life.

SpaceX won the contract by such a wide margin it would have been a scandal if they had not won.

On the Columbus finding the new world with private money remember folks: It took a PARTNERSHIP of private and government money to find and explore the New World. Nothing has changed in hundreds of years. The formula is the same.

Relax.
WE is a pravda style republican backing paper supported by Anshutz.
Very little in the paper has any real meaning.
Apparently, Anshutz himself recruited and hired Pollack to do a hit piece on Obama. If you look at the articles over the last 3 weeks from him, it is loaded with lots of mis-information on 5 of them, and I would have to assume that the rest is as well.

when working in the space program in the 90′s at k.s.c. and c.c.a.f.s., it didn’t take long to see that things had grown stagnant. we were launching a lot, but it was repetative stuff. btw, when somebody says n.a.s.a. launched this or that, what they should be saying is that government oversaw the launch of this or that. contractors have always been at the heart of it all.

anybody who believes obiwon cares about promoting this country in any way, shape or form is living in a dream world.

congrat’s to spaceX. great accomplishments. stepping stones. the older locals in fla. told me of the days when n.a.s.a. was just getting started. some say people went down just to see them explode on takeoff, and they weren’t disappointed. failure comes before success, always has, especially when things are difficult.

many scientists have been looking further out into space. already the concept of space elevators has (theroetically) come to fruition somewhat. we don’t yet have the strength capabilities required to build one from earth to space; however, it looks to me like we have all the science necessary to build one from say the moon (or large asteroid) to somewhere near earth, using the earth’s gravity well as a force keeping the ribbon taunt. several university engineering competitions have already helped develop solar powered elevators that can climb an outstretched ribbon/wire rope, made from newly developed very strong materials.

so, to sum it up, we need the capability to launch cheaply and safely, to be able to get ‘out there’ with reliability. i believe this is the hardest part. our elevator science is already well developed (safest form of trans.) and will be running to be there when we get the 00′s to get rid of most of the excess baggage and step out into space and prosper immensely from it.

saw this week where astronomers have discovered a nearby planet made mostly of carbon (diamond planet). what if a big chunk of that planet’s material is just sitting there in the meteor belt, along with who knows what else?

i’ve found that an optimistic outlook toward space travel is what is most needed, something we had way back when, and something we need to find again, for the sake of the entire earth’s population.

This is not a ‘space project.’ This is commerice. A business ttransaction. And the marketplace is watching.

Space X is peddling a for profit service they’ve brought to market– and it is a flawed product. The term ‘space project’ is disingenuous nomenclature attempting to spin a cloak of experimentation ’round a product/service already in the marektplace. As if these were ‘test flights.’ They’re not. Your latest model Iphone is a test product. It’s been tested first, then brought to market. And when a persistent flaw is found by the marketplace, the smart marketer responds (notably Apple’s recent damage control to their map app flap.)

In fact, this is a red flag for NASA.

“only delivered 882 of the promised 1,800 pounds of resupply cargo for the space station.” Roughly 1,000 lbs. of cargo is lousy service. That’s less than the total weight of Sputnik II, lofted by the Soviets 55 years ago which carried Laika the pooch into fiery history. Such is the ‘promise’ of the Magnified Importance of Diminished Vision– aka LEO COTS ops. And bear in mind, Orbcomm’s doomed bird- a Space X payload for profit- was that much less life-sustaining payload the Falcon could have lofted in Dragon to the ISS crew, regardless of the decision made on the final manifest of ISS cargo. Space X should not be piggy-backing for profit secondary payloads on government contracted flights.

This ‘space project’ was not a success for customer Orbcomm. And labeling these as ‘missions’ is a misnomer. This is business. Hiring a cab to get you cross town for a meeting isn’t a ‘mission.’ Posting a parcel w/FedEx in Florida to a client in Norway isn’t a ‘mission.’ This was a service contracted to provided another service in the marketplace. And the contractor delivered sub-standard service.

Space X is pedding sub-standard performance in the marketplace and trying to dismiss it hardly helps their plans to loft NASA crew on Falcons. They’ve failed secondary payload customers before w/Falcon.

So let the customer beware. Pay attention, NASA.

Space X would be wiser to hang a lantern on their failure and make noise about fixing the problem, especially as they plan to try to fly crews on top of their bird. But that runs contrary to standard business practice. Highlighting a weakness in a product you’ve brought to market with such Barnum-esque fanfare is bad for business, as incinerated Ford Pinto owners learned all too late.

This is business enterprise, not an experimental program to test market a product, Customers don’t buy tickets to fly aboard Delta Airlines as guinea pigs for Boeing test flights. It’s obvious Space X has brought a still flawed product to market. Excuse makers keep applying experimental rocket program parameters to a commerical enterprise. It’s a very bad mind set, similar to the excuse NASA made in the waning days of shuttle: ‘Nobody cares what it costs if the flgiht is successful.’

Orbcomm managers might accept sub-standard performance publicly in the press releases; that’s a managerial decision by Orbcomm management but insurers can’t be pleased. Rates will most likely be adjusted accordingly industry-wide. But NASA shouldn’t so easily accept such sub-standard performance with taxpayer dollars involved and in the future, potentially, the lives of crews on the line, especially given their managerial history w/Challenger and Columbia- and even Apollo 1. You want to hold any contractor, including Space X, to high standards, especially if they ever try to fly crewed spacecraft w/NASA personnel on board.

If Space X carried a NASA crew on a Falcon/Dragon stack and lost them, the public will blame NASA for not properlty vetting the contractor, not the contractor, Space X. Back in ’67, NA didn’t take the nearly the level of public heat NASA did. In ’86 Thiokol didn’t take the bulk of the public heat for a flawed SRB design, NASA did. And it was NASA management practices which were rightly slammed for Columbla. No sir, if Space X is going to try to fly crews on top of Falcons, their QA has to improve and the Obama Administrtion– or the Romney Administration– must press it. But then, QA is usually a place to cut corners– and costs- in profit-driven private sector, isn’t it.

Have you driven a Ford– Pinto or Edsel– lately? No. The VW has been successful for decades. And like Soyuz [and Progress], they’re ugly, but they get you there. Safely. To a doomed space platform in LEO going in circles, no place, fast.

———-

“It also implies that NASA was expecting 1800 pounds on this mission, but that somehow some of it fell out the window during ascent, or was tossed overboard as ballast, or space aliens hijacked some of the cargo on the way or…something. Does the reporter really find this a plausible scenario?”

“only delivered 882 of the promised 1,800 pounds of resupply cargo for the space station.” Roughly 1,000 lbs. of cargo is lousy service.

Do you realize how stupid this statement is? What do you think SpaceX did, jettison the cargo on the way to orbit? It arrived at the ISS with every ounce of payload that NASA gave to SpaceX to load into the capsule.

This is not a ‘space project.’ This is commerce. A business transaction. And the marketplace is watching.

Space X is peddling a for profit service they’ve brought to market– and it is a flawed product. The term ‘space project’ is disingenuous nomenclature attempting to spin a cloak of experimentation ’round a product/service already in the marektplace. As if these were ‘test flights.’ They’re not. Your latest model Iphone is NOT a test product. It’s been product tested first, then brought to market. And when a persistent flaw is found by the marketplace, the smart marketer responds quickly (notably Apple’s recent damage control to their map app flap.)

In fact, this is a red flag for NASA.

“only delivered 882 of the promised 1,800 pounds of resupply cargo for the space station.” Roughly 1,000 lbs. of cargo is lousy service. That’s less than the total weight of Sputnik II, lofted by the Soviets 55 years ago which carried Laika the pooch into fiery history. Such is the ‘promise’ of the Magnified Importance of Diminished Vision– aka LEO COTS ops. And bear in mind, Orbcomm’s doomed bird- a Space X payload for profit- was that much less life-sustaining payload the Falcon could have lofted in Dragon to the ISS crew, regardless of the decision made on the final manifest of ISS cargo. Space X should not be piggy-backing for profit secondary payloads on government contracted flights.

This ‘space project’ was not a success for customer Orbcomm. And labeling these as ‘missions’ is a misnomer. This is business. Hiring a cab to get you cross town for a meeting isn’t a ‘mission.’ Posting a parcel w/FedEx in Florida to a client in Norway isn’t a ‘mission.’ This was a service contracted to provided another service in the marketplace. And the contractor delivered sub-standard service.

Space X is peddling sub-standard performance in the marketplace and trying to dismiss it hardly helps their plans to loft NASA crew on Falcons. They’ve failed secondary payload customers before w/Falcon.

So let the customer beware. Pay attention, NASA.

Space X would be wiser to hang a lantern on their failure and make noise about fixing the problem, especially as they plan to try to fly crews on top of their bird. But that runs contrary to standard business practice. Highlighting a weakness in a product you’ve brought to market with such Barnum-esque fanfare is bad for business, as incinerated Ford Pinto owners learned all too late.

This is business enterprise, not an experimental program to test market a product, Customers don’t buy tickets to fly aboard Delta Airlines as guinea pigs for Boeing test flights. It’s obvious Space X has brought a still flawed product to market. Excuse makers keep applying experimental rocket program parameters to a commerical enterprise. It’s a very bad mind set, similar to the excuse NASA made in the waning days of shuttle: ‘Nobody cares what it costs if the flight is successful.’

Orbcomm managers might accept sub-standard performance publicly in the press releases; that’s a managerial decision by Orbcomm management but insurers can’t be pleased. Rates will most likely be adjusted accordingly industry-wide. But NASA shouldn’t so easily accept such sub-standard performance with taxpayer dollars involved and in the future, potentially, the lives of crews on the line, especially given their managerial history w/Challenger and Columbia- and even Apollo 1. You want to hold any contractor, including Space X, to high standards, especially if they ever try to fly crewed spacecraft w/NASA personnel on board.

If Space X carried a NASA crew on a Falcon/Dragon stack and lost them, the public will blame NASA for not properlty vetting the contractor, not the contractor, Space X. Back in ’67, NA didn’t take the nearly the level of public heat NASA did. In ’86 Thiokol didn’t take the bulk of the public heat for a flawed SRB design, NASA did. And it was NASA management practices which were rightly slammed for Columbia. No sir, if Space X is going to try to fly crews on top of Falcons, their QA has to improve and the Obama Administration– or the Romney Administration– must press it. But then, QA is usually a place to cut corners– and costs- in profit-driven private sector, isn’t it.

Have you driven a Ford– Pinto or Edsel– lately? No. The VW has been successful for decades. And like Soyuz [and Progress], they’re ugly, but they get you there. Safely. To a doomed space platform in LEO going in circles, no place, fast.

Apologies for typos.
———-

“It also implies that NASA was expecting 1800 pounds on this mission, but that somehow some of it fell out the window during ascent, or was tossed overboard as ballast, or space aliens hijacked some of the cargo on the way or…something. Does the reporter really find this a plausible scenario?”

“This is not a ‘space project.’ This is commerce. A business transaction. And the marketplace is watching.”
And it likes what it sees, and it should.
“Space X is peddling a for profit service they’ve brought to market– and it is a flawed product. … (notably Apple’s recent damage control to their map app flap.)”
It is as good a product as anything the US governemt produced under NASA by any measure, and they haven’t murdered any astronauts by having any manager take off their engineer’s hat yet.
“In fact, this is a red flag for NASA.”
No, rather, NASA’s forty year inability to deliver on any of of it’s promises of making space flight as inexpensive as it should be is a red flag to us.
““only delivered 882 of the promised 1,800 pounds of resupply cargo for the space station.” Roughly 1,000 lbs. of cargo is lousy service.”
Complain to NASA, it’s all they asked for on this flight.
“That’s less than… on government contracted flights.”
SpaceX delivered to Orbcomm exactly what OrbComm bargained for, really cheap time in weightless vacuum, and enough time at that for OrbComm to test most of the bird’s systems. The fact it didn’t make the desired orbit was a matter of NASA prohibiting an attempt at it–and OrbComm had agreed to all such restrictions.
“This ‘space project’ was …sub-standard service.”
Ehhh, Wahh Wahhh. They’re using the word mission!
“Space X is peddling sub-standard performance…before w/Falcon.”
The Shuttle with 14 killed astronauts–killed for political reasons by way of program mismanagement, which was the best NASA could ever do–and launch costs that started and stayed, ahem, astronomical; that’s substandard.
“So let the customer…attention, NASA.”
On the one hand, why should they spoil a perfect record and start now? And on the other, if they did (and really, I think they are), they should like what they see. One pound into LEO for around $1,000.00 and if volume goes up enough, it could go to $50.00.
“Space X would be wiser…incinerated Ford Pinto owners learned all too late.”
And the 14 incinerated astronauts (17 if you count Apollo 1, and I don’t see why I shouldn’t, they are part of a pattern) should be happy with NASA business as usual? Kisch mier en tuchas. People should have done time for at least the first Shuttle “accident”.
“This is business enterprise‘Nobody cares what it costs if the flight is successful.’”
Oh yes we care. NASA is unable and should be regarded as having lost it’s chance at reducing launch costs to a low order multiple of the energy costs of putting a pund into LEO.
“Orbcomm managers might…spacecraft w/NASA personnel on board.”
So now you’re telling Orbcomm how to run their business? They said what they wanted to do on this mission, they knew the risk imposed by NASA’s flight rules, and they bought the ride. It’s their business. Whether their insurance pays off and how much under these circumstances is up that contract, and really none of your concern, Mr. Concern Troll.
“If Space X carried a NASA crew on a Falcon/Dragon stack and lost them”
The process of finger pointing will be far more transparent and any wrongdoers more likely to do time, as they should. If something genuinely unexpected happens, it is far more likely to be fixed in months, not years’ time.
“the public will blame NASA for not properlty vetting the contractor, not the contractor, Space X.”
They never blamed NASA or the responsible individuals in it for the Shuttle “accidents”, did they?
“Back in ’67,…, isn’t it.”
The people taking off their engineer’s hats and putting on their manager’s hats were NASA personnel, who didn’t go to jail.
“Have you …no place, fast.”
Can’t ride a Shuttle either, nor any NASA created system via business as usual for less than, what, $8,000.00 a pound on their best day and what a 1/50 chance of losing the bird. Good riddance.
“Apologies for typos.”
Not what you need to apologize for.
““It also implies that NASA was expecting 1800 pounds on this mission, but that somehow some of it fell out the window during ascent, or was tossed overboard as ballast, or space aliens hijacked some of the cargo on the way or…something. Does the reporter really find this a plausible scenario?”
No it doesn’t. You imply it. A red herring. And it’s just silly.”
There is no significance to the fact 882 pounds went up this time, instead of 1,833. But the Examiner acrticle is “Updated” as if it were some deficiency on the part of SpaceX, or at least something worth an update. In fact it is what NASA asked for.

Except it doesn’t. Nobody likes failure, particulary the marketplace, and space X FAILED its customer by delivering sub-standard service. Their payload was vaporized.
“So now you’re telling Orbcomm how to run their business?” Clearly you are. You come into Manager Mitt’s office and tell him the other fella’s payload arrived on time but yours was fried by the contractor, but we outta like it and not worry about shoddy service and insurance rates rising and a growing history of losing secondary payloads on Falcon- he’d fire you. Heck, any good manager would flush you, TP. Kisch mier en tuchas indeed.

“It is as good a product as anything the US governemt produced under NASA by any measure”

Any measure? Except it’s not. In fact, it’s a giant leap backwards to circa 1960 which is as good a ‘measure’ as any. Such is the hype of the proponents of the Magnified Importance of Diminished Vision. But if Space X ever launches orbits and returns a crew safely on a Falcon/Dragon stack– or lands men on the moon- six times- or zips probes past distant planets, DO give us a call.

“SpaceX delivered to Orbcomm exactly what OrbComm bargained for…” So they bargained for a 100% failure. More poor management thinking on display- but you can’t be fired twice in the same posting. Or can you.

“they haven’t murdered any astronauts” – Give’em time– and murder implies intent. Even Space X management isn’t that foolish but in case you haven’t noticed they- aka Space X– haven’t flown any astronauts yet, NASA or otherwise. And likely never will until Falcon’s performance improves– oh yes, and they test/build a proven crew-safe Dragon. Remember the Pinto. Tick-tock, tick-tock, fella. Meanwhile, NASA and Russia have experience lofting crewed spacecraft for over half a century. and recently, the PRC has joined the club. Commerical, not so much. In fact, not at all. Lovethat Soyuz– it’s ugly, but it gets you there.

They never blamed NASA or the responsible individuals in it for the Shuttle “accidents”, did they?

Of course they did. Careers for the right an weong were ended or wrecked. Plenty of NASA managers were put out to pasture or ‘reassigned’ after the accidents. The roster is long. But there wasn’t a public hanging beyonf hearings (as Larry Mulloy could have told you), just general condemnation of lousy management practices, which you seem to embrace. The agency and several OOC settlements followed over the years; the contractors quietly reassigned or forced out personnel… out of he public eye. Take osme time and revisit the Apollo 205 accident erport; the Challenger report and the CAIB report. =eyeroll= NASA doeesn’t need another 0ne of those, courtesy of sub-standard performance by Space X and their clearly flawed Falcons. Space X best fix’em. And make a lot of noise about doing so. In the long run, it’;s to their advantage.

“The process of finger pointing will be far more transparent and any wrongdoers more likely to do time, as they should..” Nonsense. History shows otherwise.

“Except it doesn’t. Nobody likes failure, particulary the marketplace, and space X FAILED its customer by delivering sub-standard service. Their payload was vaporized.”
SpaceX delivered exactly on what they said they would, that they would abide by NASA’s rules for the launch. It was those launch rules and no inability on the part of the launch system which prevented a burn for the originally intended orbit for the OrbComm bird. Which is what OrbComm agreed to.
““So now you’re telling Orbcomm how to run their business?” Clearly you are.”
Huh? I’m pointing out what they agreed to, you’re saying they shouldn’t have agreed to it! But I’m the one telling them how to run their company?
“You come into Manager Mitt’s office and tell him the other fella’s payload arrived on time but yours was fried by the contractor,”
By NASA, not the contractor, get it right. The estimate before the shutdown was a 99% percent chance for the OrbComm bird, and post shutdown a 95% chance for the OrbComm bird. NASA told them not even to try, which is what OrbComm and SpaceX had agreed to.
“but we outta like it and not worry about shoddy service and insurance rates rising and a growing history of losing secondary payloads on Falcon- he’d fire you. Heck, any good manager would flush you, TP. Kisch mier en tuchas indeed.”
OrbComm agreed to NASA’s flight rules, end of story. Your fight is with NASA, not SpaceX or OrbComm.
““It is as good a product as anything the US governemt produced under NASA by any measure”
Any measure? Except it’s not. In fact, it’s a giant leap backwards to circa 1960 which is as good a ‘measure’ as any. Such is the hype of the proponents of the Magnified Importance of Diminished Vision. But if Space X ever launches orbits and returns a crew safely on a Falcon/Dragon stack– or lands men on the moon- six times- or zips probes past distant planets, DO give us a call.”
Who is “us”, who are you a shill for? NASA promised better and better technology, and lower and lower launch costs, instead we got the Shuttle which was obsolete before it lifted, it killed 14 people, met about 3% of it’s program goals, and kept launch costs sky high! And, BTW, there’s damn little about the ’60′s tech an engineer from then would recognize in the Falcon, except the names of the propellents.
““SpaceX delivered to Orbcomm exactly what OrbComm bargained for…” So they bargained for a 100% failure. More poor management thinking on display- but you can’t be fired twice in the same posting. Or can you.”
Perfectly good management, they got to test their bird for very little money (not 100% failure, even for the secondary payload), and they accepted the NASA imposed terms for the secondary payload as a good risk. Speaking of 100% failure on a by launch basis, talk to the Challenger 7 about 100% failure. Oh wait, you can’t, but OrbComm got a lot of the data they wanted and the ISS got all the cargo NASA told SpaceX to deliver.
“”hey haven’t murdered any astronauts” – Give’em time– and murder implies intent.”
Negligent homicide. The words, “take off you engineer hats”, should have landed that asshat in prison.
“even Space X management isn’t that foolish but in case you haven’t noticed they- aka Space X– haven’t flown any astronauts yet, NASA or otherwise. And likely never will until Falcon’s performance improves– oh yes, and they test/build a proven crew-safe Dragon.”
Their performance is fine, and better than NASA at this point in the development cycle.
“Remember the Pinto. Tick-tock, tick-tock, fella. Meanwhile, NASA and Russia have experience lofting crewed spacecraft for over half a century. and recently, the PRC has joined the club. Commerical, not so much. In fact, not at all. Lovethat Soyuz– it’s ugly, but it gets you there.”
So does SpaceX, and at a dramatically lower cost.
“”They never blamed NASA or the responsible individuals in it for the Shuttle “accidents”, did they?”
Of course they did. Careers for the right an weong were ended or wrecked.”
Who did prison? And why were any careers for the right ended or wrecked with what you have implied is your endorsement? Are you stoned?
“Plenty of NASA managers were put out to pasture or ‘reassigned’ after the accidents.”
Who did prison? “Take off your engineer hat”
“The roster is long. But there wasn’t a public hanging beyonf hearings (as Larry Mulloy could have told you), just general condemnation of lousy management practices, which you seem to embrace.”
How so? Because unlike you I’m not telling OrbComm how to run their business?
“The agency and several OOC settlements followed over the years; the contractors quietly reassigned or forced out personnel… out of he public eye.”
Out of the public eye? Why so harsh? /sarc
“Take osme time and revisit the Apollo 205 accident erport; the Challenger report and the CAIB report. =eyeroll= NASA doeesn’t need another 0ne of those, courtesy of sub-standard performance by Space X and their clearly flawed Falcons. Space X best fix’em. And make a lot of noise about doing so. In the long run, it’;s to their advantage.”
The substandard performance you are harping on is not found at SpaceX, they find a problem and fix it. The bird survived a fairly energetic engine failure and continued it’s mission successfully, just as designed. NASA told them not to even try to get the OrbComm bird to higher orbit. There is no and should be no paralysis by analysis, which you seem to confuse with good management.
““The process of finger pointing will be far more transparent and any wrongdoers more likely to do time, as they should..” Nonsense. History shows otherwise.”
What history? You yourself said NASA kept the “reassignments” for the negligent homicide in the Shuttle disasters out of the public eye. Do you imagine SpaceX won’t be given a proctological by Congress if there is serious mishap? You’re dreaming. Congress is salivating at the prospect of bringing cost-plus to their district, and holding SpaceX to a far higher standard than they ever have NASA and it’s pet contractors is way they can do it.

Some critics (my dog and I) say that questions have been raised, saying everything you do is worthless, and I should get all the power and money.

After a long life, I have concluded that “some critics say” and “questions have been raised” is the journalistic intro to a hatchet job, particularly in the engineering and technology fields (mine). Whenever some one opines gravity “might” stop, or “maybe” physics will be repealed, I grab my wallet. Science means to know, not guess, but folks make money guessing on the ponies, and phonies. Al Gore comes to mind.

Being total ignorant of the space program, but having engineered > $2 Bn in fixed and cost plus jobs, both in contracts with the private sector and government, I have the scars to state without fear of contradiction:
There are thieves and scoundrels in both government and many corporations.
There are idiots in both who are several levels above their capabilities.
There are hard working, dedicated, smart people working in both.
There are power mad politicians working in both.

This forum may be useful in discussing the zillion types of engineering contracts, with lump sum, hard dollar, hard schedule at one end and cost plus, fuzzy schedule at the other. Both are valid. Both cover four basics: technology, money, time, and ethics. The deciding aspect as to what soup you wish to cook, in technical risk, and mission, and how much will you pay? The less certain you are, the further from hard dollar, you want to contract. The more control you want on the contractor, the more you should pay him. By definition a contractor is one who independently decides on his own work operations. In this type contract, you define his interfaces with you, and thereafter you should stay out of his hair, or expect extra charges which you should have initially included in the contract.

Government contracts, particularly where life safety is involved, tend to be cost plus. DoD tries, but fails, to fight wars without killing our people. This is very expensive, but permits high level political types from facing the hard results of their war decisions. Mankind knows what a gallon of gasoline costs, locally delivered. During the Iraq war, one Congressman complained bitterly that it cost a lot more to deliver to Fallujah, a city in constant combat. He was, and is an idiot, some critics say.

“One would reasonably infer from this that the only reason that SpaceX got the space station resupply contract was because Elon Musk has contributed to the Obama campaign. Simply put, this is nonsense.”

Except it’s not. And it is reasonable to infer that it didn’t hurt. See Solyndra. Or for that matter, Tesla.

He is silly. He evidently doesn’t know the OrbComm bird was a test article never intended to be part of a comms traffic carrying satellite array. Just by having the systems boot, they got to test about everything they wanted to test.

No- what was silly was inferring the loss of cargo in flight. COTS is a waste of dwindling resources to service a doome space platform. When it finally splashed, another decade will have passed and we’ll be no further up, out and away. LEO is a ticket to no place, going in circles, no place fast. And the commerical cans can taker their place in museums along side the orbiters.

Mike Griffen is not a hypocrite and he is certainly nowhere near as much a criminal as the SpacEx fanboys try to make him out to be. Charlie Bolden is the worst NASA administrator in memory. At least Dan Goldin would take a stand and fight for his programs.

I pray that the examiner hit piece did not originate from the desires of Romney campaign staffers. Because the hostile know-nothingness displayed reminds me very much of the Romney pronouncements on space policy during the Florida state primary election.

Make no mistake, I plan on voting against Obama (even though that is pointless in blue-state California where Obama will win by a large margin). But under a President Romney, I fear the fate of the few things that NASA is currently doing right, such as the program supporting commercial access to space.

Orbcomm got what they needed. Had NASA not prevented it, their satellite would have gone into the intended orbit. So this is in no way of failure by SpaceX and Orbcomm agrees (the only opinion that matters.)

What I hope to see is other companies being competitive with SpaceX. They’d better get rolling.

I hope that SpaceX survives. I think having them in the game is good for the market. I do wonder if they will be able to satisfy themselves with the purely “commercial” business of lofting commsats for private customers.

Will they attempt to go after the “real” money in the DoD payload business or human flight where the rules and resulting costs are driven by different forces – one of which is mission unique requirements. Millions of extra dollars are expended on every DoD mission because of this and literally every launch vehicle is re-engineered to some extent to satisfy these requirements.

Commercial providers have the luxury of being able to narrowly specify how a particular payload must interface with their launch vehicle. The playing field in the govt payload business is more complicated, doesn’t work this way and is more costly. Whether this is right or wrong is immaterial – it is a fact. I doubt that a new player in the game would be successful in changing what has been pervasive for decades. “Better, Faster, Cheaper” was tried and will likely not be attempted again.

Now retired, I spent 35 years in aerospace and I know from personal experience how difficult changes are to make. We used to call it “pushing a rope.”

Does anyone here honestly think asteroid mining could ever return a profit? There is no there, there, if space costs more than it could return on an investment. Let me see the numbers –not from a techno-geek, but from a serious business analyst. As for all this “for the future of humanity” hoopla –that is religion, not science.

Asteroid mining will make money by supplying fuel for doing things off planet – water ice. If you can find water ice and bring power with you, you can literally do anything you want off planet – permanently. Cheers -

More than anything it is going to be an exercise in property rights. When you do actually OWN the rock. when do you get to put the rock in your accounting books as an asset you can use as collatorial for a loan.

Even if the legalities could be worked out, I imagine that owning a rock that’s a hundred million miles away would seriously redefine the notion of being “land-poor”. I wonder –if there were some recognized legal institution that could certify the title– would anyone actually lend you money based on such collateral? From a financial view, where, I wonder, would be the tipping point? Where, in other words, would the costs of exploiting extraterrestrial minerals fall below those of either mining or recycling? What would have to happen?

The market is not terrestrial, but extraterrestrial. People who want to set up resorts or other facilities in orbit, or travel to Mars on their own dime, would pay quite a bit for asteroidal or lunar resources in preference to having to haul them all up from earth.